> On Mon, 2008-04-21 at 07:01 -0400, Hans Lellelid wrote:>> Furthermore, there's no consensus on the compatibility of v2 w/ >> Apache>> license either. While FSF believes it incompatible, Apache >> apparently>> believed that it was compatible before. It does seem there's >> consensus>> on v3 being fine, though, so we'll stick with that (or later) moving>> forward.>> Does that mean it's possible to use all Propel releases so far under > the> LGPLv3 (or LGPLv3+?) retroactively? Or do I have to wait for the next> stable release to package Propel for Fedora?

That is correct. You can "relicense" it yourself, the (L)GPL allows this, because we did not explicitly specify a version number. The other options projects have is to specify a version number, or a version number "and any later version". The fact that we bundled v2.1 of the LGPL does not affect this possibility.

Alexander Kahl wrote:> On Mon, 2008-04-21 at 07:39 -0400, Hans Lellelid wrote:>> (...) I'm personally comfortable with >> releasing a package with newer license.txt or no license.txt at all >> (since there are instructions for getting the license from >> propel.phpdb.org in the header files).> > So there will be another 1.2.x release?> Please keep me/us informed, I'm eager to release the package and clarify> this to Jason, my reviewer :)

Yes, understood. I intended to have 1.3 released by now too :) -- I'm in the process of moving (again), but am hoping to have RC1 out shortly (even if there are a few bugs that I still hope to fix before final release).

On Mon, 2008-04-21 at 07:39 -0400, Hans Lellelid wrote:> (...) I'm personally comfortable with > releasing a package with newer license.txt or no license.txt at all > (since there are instructions for getting the license from > propel.phpdb.org in the header files).

So there will be another 1.2.x release?Please keep me/us informed, I'm eager to release the package and clarifythis to Jason, my reviewer :)

Alexander Kahl wrote:> On Mon, 2008-04-21 at 07:01 -0400, Hans Lellelid wrote:>> Furthermore, there's no consensus on the compatibility of v2 w/ Apache >> license either. While FSF believes it incompatible, Apache apparently >> believed that it was compatible before. It does seem there's consensus >> on v3 being fine, though, so we'll stick with that (or later) moving >> forward.> > Does that mean it's possible to use all Propel releases so far under the> LGPLv3 (or LGPLv3+?) retroactively? Or do I have to wait for the next> stable release to package Propel for Fedora?> > Hans, thanks again for your efforts!

I'm less certain on that question. I was hoping that I was going to get that answered. I am inclined to think that as the source files did not themselves specify or include a particular version, that we could release a new package with an updated license. This I'm not 100% sure on, though given that I've changed the text of the license on the website (where the source files point), I'm personally comfortable with releasing a package with newer license.txt or no license.txt at all (since there are instructions for getting the license from propel.phpdb.org in the header files).

Alexander Kahl wrote:> On Fri, 2008-04-11 at 08:07 -0400, Hans Lellelid wrote:>> I'm not entirely sure... We didn't state a version before (the>> headers >> just say LGPL); however, we did include version 2.1 (since that was >> originally the most recent version) in the distros.>>>> I'm gong to chat about this with a lawyer next week and will>> communicate >> whatever I learn there.> > Ping..?

Apparently lawyers are busy; we talked by email briefly, but he never got back to me.

I'm currently comfortable with the fact that we are just licensing this with the latest LGPL license available, which is v3 now. I don't think there's any need to get consent from all contributes, because we never explicitly said which version we were using in the past. We simply licensed it "LGPL". Yes, we included v2, since that was the latest (originally) available.

Furthermore, there's no consensus on the compatibility of v2 w/ Apache license either. While FSF believes it incompatible, Apache apparently believed that it was compatible before. It does seem there's consensus on v3 being fine, though, so we'll stick with that (or later) moving forward.

On Fri, 2008-04-11 at 08:07 -0400, Hans Lellelid wrote:> I'm not entirely sure... We didn't state a version before (the> headers > just say LGPL); however, we did include version 2.1 (since that was > originally the most recent version) in the distros.> > I'm gong to chat about this with a lawyer next week and will> communicate > whatever I learn there.

I _believe_ that if no version is stated, licensees are entitled to pick the version they prefer. At least that's what the LGPL itself says. Obviously, you need to bundle some version of the license _text_. Now consider the simple loophole where you fork Propel into itself and relicense it as LGPLv3... you could do that. Changing the license is just the same thing, and doesn't require any past contributor's consent. So we should be safe.

David

Am 11.04.2008 um 14:07 schrieb Hans Lellelid:> David Zülke wrote:>> Am 07.04.2008 um 14:54 schrieb Hans Lellelid:>>> Hi Lex ->>>>>> Alexander Kahl wrote:>>>> On Mon, 2008-04-07 at 06:38 -0400, Hans Lellelid wrote:>>>>> Oh ... yes, of course. I didn't realize that v3 was compatible >>>>> w/ Apache 2. I didn't see it on the page listing acceptable >>>>> licenses. Do you have a link for that?>>>> While I have no source explicitly listing LGPLv3 as compatible to>>>> Apache-2, compatibility can be logically concluded by looking at >>>> the>>>> additions of the LGPLv3 to the GPLv3 [1] and realizing there are no>>>> changes to the "patent termination and indemnification >>>> provisions" [2]>>>> that cause the GPLv2 incompatibility but are present in the GPLv3.>>>> [1] http://www.gnu.org/l​icenses/lgpl.html>>>> [2] http://www.apache.or​g/licenses/GPL-compa​tibility.html>>>>> If that's the case, then this is easy. We'll just update to v3, >>>>> make that explicit in the headers and move along... :)>>>> I really hope the LGPLv3 suffices to ensure this! :)>>>>>> Yes, after reading some more docs & discussion, it does indeed >>> look like these should be compatible.>>>>>> Assuming that there's no objection (I don't expect any), we will >>> switch to using the LGPLv3.>> Fine with me. Can we do that? Did we state an LGPL version before? >> If yes, I assume we'd actually need written permission of each >> contributor to relicense his contribution. Meh.>> I'm not entirely sure... We didn't state a version before (the > headers just say LGPL); however, we did include version 2.1 (since > that was originally the most recent version) in the distros.>> I'm gong to chat about this with a lawyer next week and will > communicate whatever I learn there.>> Hans>> --------------------​--------------------​--------------------​---------> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@prop​el.tigris.org> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help at propel dot tigris dot org>>

David Zülke wrote:> Am 07.04.2008 um 14:54 schrieb Hans Lellelid:>> Hi Lex ->>>> Alexander Kahl wrote:>>> On Mon, 2008-04-07 at 06:38 -0400, Hans Lellelid wrote:>>>> Oh ... yes, of course. I didn't realize that v3 was compatible w/ >>>> Apache 2. I didn't see it on the page listing acceptable licenses. >>>> Do you have a link for that?>>> While I have no source explicitly listing LGPLv3 as compatible to>>> Apache-2, compatibility can be logically concluded by looking at the>>> additions of the LGPLv3 to the GPLv3 [1] and realizing there are no>>> changes to the "patent termination and indemnification provisions" [2]>>> that cause the GPLv2 incompatibility but are present in the GPLv3.>>> [1] http://www.gnu.org/l​icenses/lgpl.html>>> [2] http://www.apache.or​g/licenses/GPL-compa​tibility.html>>>> If that's the case, then this is easy. We'll just update to v3, >>>> make that explicit in the headers and move along... :)>>> I really hope the LGPLv3 suffices to ensure this! :)>>>> Yes, after reading some more docs & discussion, it does indeed look >> like these should be compatible.>>>> Assuming that there's no objection (I don't expect any), we will >> switch to using the LGPLv3.> > Fine with me. Can we do that? Did we state an LGPL version before? If > yes, I assume we'd actually need written permission of each contributor > to relicense his contribution. Meh.

I'm not entirely sure... We didn't state a version before (the headers just say LGPL); however, we did include version 2.1 (since that was originally the most recent version) in the distros.

I'm gong to chat about this with a lawyer next week and will communicate whatever I learn there.

Am 07.04.2008 um 14:54 schrieb Hans Lellelid:> Hi Lex ->> Alexander Kahl wrote:>> On Mon, 2008-04-07 at 06:38 -0400, Hans Lellelid wrote:>>> Oh ... yes, of course. I didn't realize that v3 was compatible w/ >>> Apache 2. I didn't see it on the page listing acceptable >>> licenses. Do you have a link for that?>> While I have no source explicitly listing LGPLv3 as compatible to>> Apache-2, compatibility can be logically concluded by looking at the>> additions of the LGPLv3 to the GPLv3 [1] and realizing there are no>> changes to the "patent termination and indemnification >> provisions" [2]>> that cause the GPLv2 incompatibility but are present in the GPLv3.>> [1] http://www.gnu.org/l​icenses/lgpl.html>> [2] http://www.apache.or​g/licenses/GPL-compa​tibility.html>>> If that's the case, then this is easy. We'll just update to v3, >>> make that explicit in the headers and move along... :)>> I really hope the LGPLv3 suffices to ensure this! :)>> Yes, after reading some more docs & discussion, it does indeed look > like these should be compatible.>> Assuming that there's no objection (I don't expect any), we will > switch to using the LGPLv3.

Fine with me. Can we do that? Did we state an LGPL version before? If yes, I assume we'd actually need written permission of each contributor to relicense his contribution. Meh.

Alexander Kahl wrote:> On Mon, 2008-04-07 at 06:38 -0400, Hans Lellelid wrote:>> Oh ... yes, of course. I didn't realize that v3 was compatible w/ >> Apache 2. I didn't see it on the page listing acceptable licenses. Do >> you have a link for that?> While I have no source explicitly listing LGPLv3 as compatible to> Apache-2, compatibility can be logically concluded by looking at the> additions of the LGPLv3 to the GPLv3 [1] and realizing there are no> changes to the "patent termination and indemnification provisions" [2]> that cause the GPLv2 incompatibility but are present in the GPLv3.> > [1] http://www.gnu.org/l​icenses/lgpl.html> [2] http://www.apache.or​g/licenses/GPL-compa​tibility.html> > >> If that's the case, then this is easy. We'll just update to v3, make >> that explicit in the headers and move along... :)> I really hope the LGPLv3 suffices to ensure this! :)

Yes, after reading some more docs & discussion, it does indeed look like these should be compatible.

Assuming that there's no objection (I don't expect any), we will switch to using the LGPLv3.

Also, I intend to release 1.3.0RC1 shortly (hopefully this week; we just need to resolve some Oracle quirks), which would be the first version to explicitly specify that we're using v3.

Thanks for bringing this to our attention and helping us find a solution.

On Mon, 2008-04-07 at 06:38 -0400, Hans Lellelid wrote:> Oh ... yes, of course. I didn't realize that v3 was compatible w/ > Apache 2. I didn't see it on the page listing acceptable licenses. Do > you have a link for that?While I have no source explicitly listing LGPLv3 as compatible toApache-2, compatibility can be logically concluded by looking at theadditions of the LGPLv3 to the GPLv3 [1] and realizing there are nochanges to the "patent termination and indemnification provisions" [2]that cause the GPLv2 incompatibility but are present in the GPLv3.

Alexander Kahl wrote:> Hi Hans,> > Thank you very much for your efforts to solve this issue. I really like> Propel and introduced it at work here, it saves us a lot of time in our> projects - packaging Propel for the Fedora community is the least I can> do to contribute back.> > On Sat, 2008-04-05 at 07:42 -0400, Hans Lellelid wrote:>> I am not completely satisfied with this, as I feel the PHP license is >> too free from obligation on derivative works; however, I am not willing >> to put PHP sourcecode under the GPL. Unless version 3 is a "non-viral" >> license, I think that this is extremely akward in a web development >> environment (and code-generation environment).> Isn't the LGPLv3 a good choice to solve all issues, non-affection of> linking libraries, ensuring contribution back from derivative works and> Apache-2.0 compatibility?

Oh ... yes, of course. I didn't realize that v3 was compatible w/ Apache 2. I didn't see it on the page listing acceptable licenses. Do you have a link for that?

If that's the case, then this is easy. We'll just update to v3, make that explicit in the headers and move along... :)

Thank you very much for your efforts to solve this issue. I really likePropel and introduced it at work here, it saves us a lot of time in ourprojects - packaging Propel for the Fedora community is the least I cando to contribute back.

On Sat, 2008-04-05 at 07:42 -0400, Hans Lellelid wrote:> I am not completely satisfied with this, as I feel the PHP license is > too free from obligation on derivative works; however, I am not willing > to put PHP sourcecode under the GPL. Unless version 3 is a "non-viral" > license, I think that this is extremely akward in a web development > environment (and code-generation environment).Isn't the LGPLv3 a good choice to solve all issues, non-affection oflinking libraries, ensuring contribution back from derivative works andApache-2.0 compatibility?

Alexander Kahl wrote:> I've created Propel packages for Fedora that are in review right now but> the reviewer is unsure whether the LGPL is valid in Propel's case,> quote:> > "The license is a bit odd. First off, I think it's LGPLv2+, because the> version is not specified anywhere and the LGPL allows us to choose any> version at all in that case.> > However, if you look upstream, they say that they've relicensed Apache 2> licenced code to LGPL. I sort of understand what the situation would be if they> had licensed to GPL, as only GPLv3 is compatible with ASLv2 so the result would> be GPLv3+. But I really don't know about LGPL."> > Can anyone please clarify this? Until then, Propel's inclusion in Fedora remains> impossible. The full review can be seen at> https://bugzilla.red​hat.com/show_bug.cgi​?id=266841

One clarification -- I'm quite certain that the source code for Torque that this was based on would have been the Apache 1 license. It looks like the Apache2 license was only approved in 2004, whereas this development was happening in 2002, 2003. I don't know that this has any effect on the question (I'm reading that original license now), but the Propel license wiki page is wrong to reference Apache2 as the original source license.

> I've created Propel packages for Fedora that are in review right now but> the reviewer is unsure whether the LGPL is valid in Propel's case,> quote:> > "The license is a bit odd. First off, I think it's LGPLv2+, because the> version is not specified anywhere and the LGPL allows us to choose any> version at all in that case.> > However, if you look upstream, they say that they've relicensed Apache 2> licenced code to LGPL. I sort of understand what the situation would be if they> had licensed to GPL, as only GPLv3 is compatible with ASLv2 so the result would> be GPLv3+. But I really don't know about LGPL."> > Can anyone please clarify this? Until then, Propel's inclusion in Fedora remains> impossible. The full review can be seen at> https://bugzilla.red​hat.com/show_bug.cgi​?id=266841

Well, I want to say there is precedent for Apache2 software under the LGPL, but I have no examples springing to mind. I know that I spent some time reading these licenses and looking at this when we were choosing licensing originally; that said, I also note that Apache doesn't claim they are compatible with LGPL. Quite the contrary. Hmmm :-/ Honestly, licensing questions have rarely come up on this project, which probably comes as no surprise.

So, my proposal to bring this into licensing compatibility would be to get contributors to agree to change the license to the PHP license, which I assume is compatible with Apache2 (though not specifically mentioned), given that it is based on the Apache license.

I am not completely satisfied with this, as I feel the PHP license is too free from obligation on derivative works; however, I am not willing to put PHP sourcecode under the GPL. Unless version 3 is a "non-viral" license, I think that this is extremely akward in a web development environment (and code-generation environment).

Assuming that this move would solve the license incompatibility, I will contact the contributors -- well, probably via this list :) -- to get buyoff on that change. I expect that most contributors will embrace this and that most users will welcome the change to a less restrictive license.

I've created Propel packages for Fedora that are in review right now butthe reviewer is unsure whether the LGPL is valid in Propel's case,quote:

"The license is a bit odd. First off, I think it's LGPLv2+, because theversion is not specified anywhere and the LGPL allows us to choose anyversion at all in that case.

However, if you look upstream, they say that they've relicensed Apache 2licenced code to LGPL. I sort of understand what the situation would be if theyhad licensed to GPL, as only GPLv3 is compatible with ASLv2 so the result wouldbe GPLv3+. But I really don't know about LGPL."